The Law Is Not Our Ex-Spouse

The law never belonged to the Gentiles. The law is not our ex-spouse.  At the end of Romans 9, Paul reminds his readers that the Gentiles were not even pursuing righteousness, but they attained it. They had no relationship with the law. The Jews were the ones who were married to the law, and yet they didn't attain righteousness, because they tried to attain it by their marriage to the law, and not by faith. The Gentiles, who were not married to the law and weren't even trying to be righteous (they weren't pursuing righteousness), attained it anyway, because they bypassed the law completely and simply believed in Christ.

Apart from law, Gentiles believed and became righteous. Apart from pursuing righteousness they became righteous. It wasn't until they had already been established in a relationship with Jesus, by faith alone, apart from any involvement from the law, that the Judaizers came along and introduced the law to them, trying to get them to add their Jewish law, which the Gentiles had never known, to their lives in Christ. The Galatians were being "bewitched," but they weren't being bewitched to go "back" to the law. Again, they had previously not had a relationship with the law and had not even been pursuing righteousness. Rather, they were being bewitched into "adding" law where there had previously been no law.

The "tutor" or "guardian" of the law was purely for those who had been in that relationship with the law - those who had actually been under the law and who had been pursuing righteousness by their attempts at keeping the law - the Jews. The Gentiles had been under no such guardianship. They had been on the outside of all of this, and had no law and no covenants of promise with God, and were "far off," having "no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12).  They weren't even trying to pursue righteousness, but they found it anyway, because Jesus shed His blood for them and brought them near that way. "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off (Gentiles) have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (Eph 2:13).

The Gentiles hadn't been led to faith in Christ by the law, which they had never known in the first place. They had been led to faith in Christ through the message of the good news that Christ's blood had been shed for them just as it had been shed for those who had the law and the covenants of promise and the heritage of God. They had been led to Christ through the message that while they were once considered as "dogs" on the outside, God had shown His love for them equally and had provided the way for them to be equal heirs with the Jews in His family.

Both those who had been married to the law and those who had had no relationship to the law whatsoever were now joined together into "one" body ("one new man" – Eph 2:15). The Jewish people had to die to the law that they had been married to, in order to now be joined to Christ. The Gentiles, who had been without law, had to simply accept the invitation, by faith, to become part of this new family that God was forming out of the two.

Locate Grace Ministries

Looking for a grace-based ministry, whether a church or online or traveling ministry, or a counseling or coaching service?

Check out Locate Grace Ministries.  Here you'll find various lists of ministries and other resources. This is not our site, but is put together by someone who is passionate about helping people discover and know and grow in God's love and grace.

Gentiles Never Had the Law and Never Died to the Law

When Paul brought the gospel to the Jews, they had been under the law as a people for 1500 years and they were pursuing righteousness by trying to keep it - and yet falling short (see Rom 9:31). Paul told them that there was no life or righteousness in the law, and that they had to die to the law in order to be joined to Christ and bear fruit to God (Rom 7:4).

When Paul brought the gospel to he Gentiles, he told them no such thing. They didn't need to be freed from the law or die to the law, because they had not been under the law. In fact, they had not even been pursuing righteousness (according to any law or works)! (Rom 3:30) Rather, Paul simply told them that they had been aliens and strangers from Israel and the covenants and God's promises, and they had been been "far off" from God, "having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph 2:12-13)

The Gentiles had never had a covenant between them and God.  People who have never been in a covenant with God - a covenant that He Himself came up with - have no clue what it's like to actually be in a covenant like that, and would have no clue what it's like to have to die to that in order to be joined to God. Dying to the law was for unbelieving Jews, in order for them to be joined to Christ and made alive to God.  It wasn't for Gentile believers who had resorted to the foolishness of adding law to their lives.  Gentiles didn't need to (and couldn't!) die to the law.  The Gentiles who were already believers simply needed to stop the foolishness of believing the lie that adding the obsolete Jewish law to their lives would further perfect them. What had happened is that they had been brought near to God, not by freedom from law, but simply by the blood of Christ.  A great big "PERIOD" needed to be added there.  That's it.  It was done.  They were in Christ and perfected by the blood of Christ.  Period.

It wasn't until the Gentiles - who, again, had never been under the law and never had any relationship with it whatsoever - began believing in Christ, that certain Jews began to tell them that they had to keep the law in order to be further justified or "perfected." In Galatians 3, Paul called them "foolish" for believing this, and proceeded to tell them of what life was like for himself and for other Jews who had actually been under the law. They had been under a curse. The law had kept them "under guard." They had to keep the law in its entirety, which was an impossibility.

The law had been in effect until the Seed (Christ) should come. And then Christ redeemed Israel from the curse of the law, and led them to God's promise of righteousness by faith. The Gentiles had never been under anything at all like this! (The law, the curse, the bondage, etc.) So why would they want to subject themselves to it? This is the freedom that Paul was desiring for the Gentiles. They had never been in bondage like the people of Israel had been, but now they were beginning to subject themselves to this yoke that Israel could never bear!

Paul wrote to the Galatians, not to tell them that they must die to the law. But rather to question why they would want to subject themselves to the law that he and the people of Israel had to die to. When Paul told them in Galatians 5 to stand in the liberty by which Christ had made them free, he was talking about the freedom they initially had - when they had never been under any law toward God, but had come to him simply by faith.

But what about Romans 2?  Doesn't Paul say the Gentiles had some sort of "law unto themselves"?  Well, in order to understand what Paul is saying, we've got to read him as a whole, not just in bits and pieces.  Paul brought up several things in Romans 2 that aren't actually true, such as saying that it's those who do good who will obtain eternal life, and that people will be justified by being "doers of the law."  We've got to understand that much of what Paul said in Romans 2 was a matter of him building up to a larger point. 

It's the same as the hypothetical example Paul gave in Romans 2 of a Gentile keeping the law, and having the work of the law written in their heart.  Even the Jews didn't have the work of the law written in their hearts!  Paul was simply pointing out to the Jews that just because they had the law, that didn't mean they were "doers of the law," and therefore they weren't justified by the law like they thought they were.  Paul had just told them that they have no right to judge others, because they themselves do the same things.  Paul isn't actually saying that Gentiles have the work of the law written in their hearts.  He's saying that if a Gentile, who does not have the law, was to do "by nature" what is written in the law, he would be justified as a doer of the law.  And the Jew, who has the law, but doesn't do what is written in the law, would not be justified.

But in the end, what Paul is leading up to is that no one actually keeps the law, whether Jew or Gentile.  Paul is simply showing the Jews that just because they are the ones who have the law, that doesn't mean that they're righteous.  Jews had the law, and were pursuing righteousness by the law, but in the end they weren't actually "doers of the law."  So they had to die to the law and believe in Christ in order to become righteous - by faith alone.  Gentiles never had the law and therefore never died to the law.  They came to God simply through the blood of Christ, as they were once "far off" from God but believed and were brought near.

God Desired a Sacrifice for Sins

There are some who say that God didn't need or desire Christ's sacrifice for sins. Even though there aren't too many who believe that, it's still worth addressing. They say that it was men, not God, who desired some form of a sacrifice for sins, and so Jesus obliged by going to the Cross - just to "show" us God's love. They say God didn't call for the sacrifice Himself, and in fact did not desire it at all. They say the Cross was not necessary, but God did it to satisfy man's thirst for blood.

Ridiculous, right? This line of thinking, just like most universalist and inclusionist thinking, comes from a handful of Bible verses that are each taken completely out of context.

One of these verses is Romans 5:8, which says that "God demonstrates (shows) His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." See, Christ's death was just a matter of God "showing" or "demonstrating" His love, that's all. But read on to the next verse, and we see, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him" (vs 9). "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (vs 10).

Much more happened through Christ's sacrifice than a mere showing of God's love. We were justified, and saved from wrath.

Another passage that is used to build this line of thinking is found in Hebrews 10:5-10. Here are the words that are blatantly ripped out of context: Verse 5 says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire." Verse 6 goes on to say, "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure." And Verse 8 says, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, not had pleasure in them."

Makes a solid case that God didn't want Jesus' sacrifice for sins, right? Not so fast. The last verse above, Verse 8, goes on to say, "WHICH ARE OFFERED ACCORDING TO THE LAW." The sacrifices and offerings for sin that God did not desire were the ANIMAL sacrifices that were offered according to the LAW. They conveniently leave that part out, and to top it off, they leave out some other very important parts of that passage:

Verse 7: "Then I [Jesus] said, 'Behold, I have come - In the volume of the book it is written of Me - To do YOUR WILL, O God.'" The beginning of the chapter shows how the animal sacrifices could never make anyone pure, or remove their consciousness of sin, but only provided a reminder of sins. They could not take away sins. So those were not God's will or desire.

But CHRIST came to do His will, as we see if we complete Verse 5 (rather than taking it out of context) - "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME." Jesus offered His own body as the sacrifice for sins, which was God's will. Verse 10: "By that will we have been sanctified through the OFFERING of the BODY OF JESUS once for all." Verse 14: "For by ONE OFFERING He has perfected forever those who are sanctified."

There are some slick talkers out there who will try to convince you that everyone has always been OK, and there was never a need for the Cross or the shed blood of Jesus. There are a handful of scriptures that might seem to make that case --- if not for the MYRIADS of other scriptures that show us what was accomplished through His blood!

One more verse to look at, for now. Colossians 1:21 says, "You, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh..."

They highlight the phrase "IN YOUR MIND," as if to say that it was all in our minds. We weren't actual enemies of God. "We just thought so." Several things to point out here. For one, if it was only in our minds, then why would we need to be reconciled!? We wouldn't need reconciliation. We would just need a mind adjustment. And then, just keep on reading: "...He has now reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight - IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard..."

They had heard this message, which Paul goes on to say "was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister," and they had a choice of whether or not to "continue" (remain, abide, stay) with the truth of the message, or to reject it. The point is that there is a big "IF" regarding being holy, blameless and above reproach," and that it wasn't already true, and merely needed a shift in the mind to "realize" it or "awaken" to it.

I'll also point out that in versions such as the ESV, it's worded like this: "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled..." I think this brings out what Paul is really saying. He's not saying that they were enemies only in their minds, but rather than in their minds they were hostile (toward God) and did evil things.

A bit long here, not for everyone. 😃 But if you've made it this far then hopefully that means this interests you as it does me.

"If we confess our sins." Not an ongoing confession for believers, but an end of denial for Gnostics.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

This verse has a much different meaning than an English language face-value reading gives it. Many have interpreted this verse to mean that believers are to continually confess their sins in order to be forgiven and cleansed over and over again by God.

But looking at the context of the culture, as well as the context of the surrounding verses, and also looking at the meanings of the words in the original language, all work together to give us a different picture of what John is really saying.

The word "confess" in English isn't necessarily a 'bad' translation, but it also doesn't really get to the gist of what is being said. Many take this to mean that they are to confess their individual sins to God. But that's not really what is being said. The word is homologeō (Strong's 3670), and it does not mean to make a confession of guilt before God for each of our sins. The word can mean "to say the same thing as another," but I think an even better definition, straight from a Greek lexicon, is "not to deny."

This fits the context of both the culture and of the previous verse. In the culture of that first century church that John was writing to, there were people known as Gnostics who were spreading false information about Jesus and the gospel. According to the introduction to 1 John in Nelson's Study Bible:

"Gnosticism was a teaching that blended Eastern mysticism with Greek dualism (which claimed that the spirit is completely good, but matter is completely evil)... Based on the concept that matter is evil and spirit is good, some Gnostics concluded that if God was truly good He could not have created the material universe. Therefore, some lesser god had to have created it... The dualistic views of Gnosticism were also reflected in the prevalent belief that Jesus did not have a physical body."

Because of their belief that the human body (which is "matter") is completely evil, and that the spirit is completely good, they denied that they had any sins. What was done with the body was irrelevant. And also, because of their belief that Jesus could not have possibly had a physical body, they denied that He had come in the flesh.

If you have this in mind while reading the entire first chapter of John's epistle, it makes a lot more sense. Right from the start, John is declaring to them that he and the other apostles have "heard," "seen with our eyes," "looked upon" and "touched with our hands" a physical being - the word of life, Jesus. He is declaring that Jesus did actually come in the flesh. Why? He wants those who don't believe that Jesus came in the flesh to understand that He really did come in the flesh, "So that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:3)

It then makes all the more sense why John, in Chapter 4, would go on to say, "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God." We understand that as believers, we don't need to continually confess (over and over again) that Jesus came in the flesh. It's the same with 1 John 1:9 and sins. It's a matter of an unbeliever (specifically, a Gnostic unbeliever), stopping their denial that they have sinned and that Jesus came in the flesh.

In Verse 8, John says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." It's not believers who say they have no sin. And of course, it's not believers who deny that Jesus came in the flesh. Believers already believe that Jesus came as a physical human being ("in the flesh") and that He came as the propitiation for our sins. John would not need to declare any of this to believers. It's the Gnostic deniers-of-sin and deniers-of-Jesus-in-the-flesh who needed to hear this.

On top of all this, the "confession" of sins is not a requirement to be forgiven of sins or to be saved. In all of Paul's explanations of the gospel, throughout his epistles, not one time does he tell anyone to confess their sins! Also, in Paul's dealings with sinful behavior in the churches that he wrote to, not one time did he ever tell anyone to confess their sins in order to be forgiven and have fellowship with God!

Paul was clear in his epistles that believers are already in the light (1 Thess 5:5, Eph 5:8). They already have fellowship with God (1 Cor 1:9, 6:17). They are already forgiven and cleansed of all their sins (1 Cor 6:11, Eph 1:7-8, Eph 4:32, Col 3:13). Look especially at those last two verses. They are exhortations from Paul, saying, "forgive others because God has already forgiven you."

1 John 1:9, and the epistle as a whole, isn't about believers continually confessing their sins to God in order to be forgiven and to have fellowship with Him.  In Chapter 2, John says, "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for His name's sake" (1 John 2:12).  How would John know whether or not they have "confessed" all their sins in order to be forgiven?  He wouldn't know, of course, and that is why it should be easily understood that his words in the first chapter were not directed toward them, but rather toward unbelievers - specifically Gnostics who denied that they had sinned, and who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh.

John was declaring the truth to them, in hopes that they would stop deceiving themselves, and end their denial of these things so that they could come into the light and have fellowship with God and with the rest of the believers.

The screenshot below is from blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3670/nkjv/tr/0-1/

Faith Without Works Is the Only Faith That Justifies and Saves

Faith without works is the only faith that justifies and saves.

It's not a big secret that I believe Paul and James disagreed on the issues of justification and salvation. After all, we did a 21-part series about this on our podcast in 2020-21, where we talked about the evidence that we see not only in James' epistle, but also in other NT writings (including Acts and Paul's epistles) that point to James believing in and preaching salvation and justification by faith and works mixing together, whereas whenever Paul writes about justification or salvation, he writes about it as being by the blood of Jesus, by faith alone, apart from works.

One of the easiest contrasts that is plain to see is when James asks the question, "What does it profit if a man says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14) After giving a regular-life example to show his belief that faith is dead if it doesn't have works, and then examples of a work that Abraham did and a work that Rahab did in addition to their faith, he concludes, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) And yet Paul plainly states, "To the man who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Rom 4:5) Not only does Paul not mix works in with faith in order to justify or save a person, he explicitly states that it's the person who does not work who is justified. You see this throughout his epistles.

Now, you may have some other interpretation of James' words in James 2, and of his actions in Acts 15 (where he OK'd the idea of Gentiles not having to keep the law, but not so much for the Jews), and in Acts 21 (where he told Paul to deny that he taught that people didn't have to keep the law of Moses), and Paul's words about him in Galatians 2 (where Peter had no problem eating with Gentiles, but suddenly became fearful and withdrew from them when James sent men there). If you have another way of seeing James, that's fine. We don't need to part ways or squabble over it.

But somehow we have to make it clear that the gospel that saves - the good news - is that God has given the gift of justification, righteousness and salvation to those who believe - completely apart from works. The faith that justifies and saves is faith apart from works. According to Paul, faith without works is FULLY ALIVE (!), because this faith - faith without works - is the only faith that saves. It is faith, apart from any work, through which man is saved and receives the free gift of justification and righteousness. According to Paul, if a work is added to faith, a person has something to boast about - "but not before God." (Rom 4:2).

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Rom 4:5)

Sowing and Reaping Is Not About Gaining Financial Prosperity, But Rather Helping Others

First, I don't want anyone to read into what I'm about to say, thinking that I'm against being financially wealthy or prosperous in this world. Go for it, if you're able to make a lot of money and have a lot of stuff or do a lot of things!

So with that said, that's not what sowing and reaping is about. In the famous chapter on sowing and reaping, 2 Corinthians 9, it says nothing about sowing so that you will reap wealth and prosperity for yourself. Now again, I want to say that there's nothing wrong with being financially or materially wealthy or prosperous! But that's not Paul's message in 2 Corinthians 9. Not one time does he encourage a person to sow/give for the purpose of reaping and abundance for themselves. 

Each time, he says that the abundance is for the sake of others. Look at how he begins: "Now concerning the ministering to the saints..." Right off the bat, he's writing about the Corinthian people ministering to others. In verse 5, Paul talks about their gift to the saints being a matter of generosity and not grudging obligation. 

Then in verse 6 he says that "he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully." This sole verse, taken way out of context, has been the source of many people teaching that "sowing" generously causes God to bring wealth and prosperity to people, so they can live comfortably in this world. Once again - nothing wrong with living comfortably or being rich - but that's not what Paul is saying! Read on. 

"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work." (2 Cor 9:7-8) 

The abundance that comes from God's grace abounding toward them is not given as a means of providing an abundant lifestyle for themselves, but rather for them to be able to do the good work involved in ministering to others. Paul then quotes from the OT a verse that shows how God has given to the poor. This comes from Him providing grace to people so that they may have an abundance "for every good work," which is ministering to the poor saints. 

In verse 10 Paul says God supplies seed to the sower. Where does this supply come from? Paul has already told us. It's through God's grace that He has made to abound toward them. And what is this seed to be used for? It's to "increase the fruits of your righteousness, while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving to God." They are "enriched in everything," not for their own comfort, but so that they can give liberally. What they have sown is for the benefit of others (those they give/minister to), and as God enriches them in everything, it causes liberality in their giving... and it causes thanksgiving to God! 

So far in this passage, there is nothing said about them sowing for the purpose of reaping God's blessings to make themselves prosperous for their own sakes... but rather for the sake of others. And it continues that way. 

Verse 12: "For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God..." Once again, their generous sowing is not for themselves, but for supplying the needs of the poor saints that they are giving to. In the very next verse (13) Paul again says that their ministry (sowing for the needs of the saints) brings about those saints glorifying God "for your liberal sharing with them and with all men." 

Sowing and reaping is not about giving to get something from God! It's about giving for the benefit of others, so that their needs may be met, and so that there may be much good fruit, and then thanksgiving to God, who is the one who, through His grace, supplies the seed in the first place. 

One more time... this isn't an "anti-wealth" message. Be free to be wealthy if you're able! But sowing and reaping is not about becoming wealthy. It's about helping others.

Do you feel weak, small, foolish, or powerless? You're in the right place for God's grace to shine!

Do you feel as if you have nothing to offer? Or do you perhaps feel that what you have to offer might seem foolish or stupid or silly? Do you feel that others are so much more competent or wiser than you? Do you feel weak in the eyes of the world? Do you feel less than honorable or distinguished when compared with others? Do you feel others have much more pull or sway than you, or that you have very little or no influence on others? Are you a little (or a lot) rough around the edges? Do you feel small? Do you wonder how in the world God could ever use you for anything good?

You're in the right place! Sure, God can use shiny, smooth, slick, good-looking, strong, noble people to accomplish His plans. But guess what? Even when He does so, it's not about their brilliance or splendor or self-sufficiency. It's about His power and grace at work in them. And even so, His power and grace is all the more evident and on display in those who understand their weaknesses and lack of abilities.

God can make something out of nothing. Likewise, He can make nothing out of something. He can make things high that are low. He can make a powerhouse out of the powerless. He can make the impotent strong and productive. With God, there are no limits.

If you feel weak and powerless, you're in the right place. Nothing is too difficult for God, and nothing is impossible for Him.

Reducing Life in Christ Down to Rules and Principles Instead of Knowing God

The church today has reduced life in Christ down to rules, regulations and principles... and lots of them. Isn't that about what you get when you go to many churches and listen to or read many online/radio preachers and teachers?

But the miracles of Christ becoming one of us, and then dying for our sins and being raised again from the dead so that we could also be raised with Him and receive the gift of eternal life, weren't accomplished for the purpose of giving us a daily existence of trying to accomplish living by a bunch of laws, rules and principles!

Many believers know the things that they think they're supposed to do and not do. But do they know Christ apart from what they do and don't do? Is their relationship with God real to them apart from making sure they're following certain rules, guidelines or principles?

Do they know "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2) and do they "know the power of His resurrection"? (Phil 3:10). Or do they simply know a daily life of trying to "live right," and sometimes failing and sometimes feeling like they're doing OK.

It's not Christ who has set you up for a cycle of success and failure, success and failure, success and failure, when it comes to your daily life in Him. The church has done that, with their constant teachings of "how to's," principles, rules, laws and behavior modification programs and messages.

Did Paul and the others share some wisdom in their epistles that helped the early churches with their understanding of what daily living in Christ is and isn't about? Certainly. But with our ready access to a collection of those epistles, we forget (or don't realize) that those apostles didn't set out to write a book about "rules, principles and guidelines for daily living in Christ." Often they were responding to false teachings and misunderstandings that had arisen in specific churches, and addressing errors that needed to be corrected... but these things were not their core message.

The central message of Christ and the gospel is knowing Him. It's knowing our union with Him. It's knowing that we died with Him and were raised together into new life with Him that isn't focused on behavior, but rather took the focus on behavior away so that we could truly know God!

Is behavior important? Sure it is. But by far it is not the focus of life in Christ. It's knowing God and His love, grace and faithfulness, and our union with Him, apart from our behavior. This changes a person without even having to focus on changing!

Fleshly Guilt and Motivational Speeches vs. God's Grace at Work

I received an invitation to a men's retreat via email, and while there's nothing inherently wrong with these things, there was some wording in the invitation that stuck out to me. It said something about how easy it can be to dismiss opportunities like this and to come up with excuses to not attend. This actually says a lot about the mindsets of people who put on things like this.

If I were to attend a men's retreat, why would I want to go to one in which the hosts think I'd want to make up an excuse to not attend?

Due to past experience (and I'm not saying this particular retreat is set up this way), I know that many of these events are set up to "challenge" men to do more, be more, work harder, be more committed. They are essentially based on a legalistic, performance-based mindset that believes in a type of Christianity that is all about doing. All about behavior. All about performance.

The teachers and leaders in these retreats essentially try to guilt men into being dedicated to performing better for God in order to become the men He wants them to be... rather than teaching them and encouraging them in who God has already made them to be, and that they don't need to "become" anything, and how it's His faithfulness, and it's His grace that is at work in them that causes an outflow of thankfulness and fruit.

Look, I used to attend these things, and I'd get all pumped up from the motivational speakers (that's really what they are) about how I'm going to change, and how I'm going to be "on fire" for Jesus! And then within days I'd be all deflated and discouraged because I couldn't sustain the fire. The reason for this is because all the preaching centered on ME and MY commitment, MY performance, MY attempts at taking the world for God. And I don't have what it takes.

But if you put me with other people who will daily encourage me in Christ's finished work... in who I already am in Him... in how I'm already complete in Him... in how He Himself is faithful to perform the work He began in me... in how I'm already fully in Him and He in me... in how it's not up to me and my faithfulness and commitment but in how He sustains me by His faithfulness and commitment to me, and by His grace... I don't need an excuse to not attend, but rather I'm running as fast as I can to get there!

Is it that I don't want to "do," or that I don't want to "perform," or even that I don't want to be "committed" to good things? Of course not. But legalism and guilt, and fleshly motivational speeches, are not the way. Rather, being free to be who God has already made me to be, and to rely on His sustaining grace... that is the way.

The Gospel Is for Both the "Good" and the "Bad"... Whoever Accepts the Invitation

Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. Matt 22:8-10

We often think that "bad" people are the unworthy ones, but really the unworthy ones are the ones who were originally invited to the wedding, but rejected the invitation. This represents Israel, God's chosen people, who rejected the gospel. So God sent out His invitation to "as many as you can find." "Both good and bad." It's not about whether you're good or bad. It's whether or not you accept the invitation that has been extended freely to all.

The parable then continues, saying that a wedding guest was found who didn't have on a wedding garment. He was cast out "into outer darkness." The wedding garment represents righteousness. So how do we become clothed in righteousness? Israel had (zealously) tried to pursue it through their law-keeping, but they did not attain it. (See Rom 10:2-3). It's something that can only be received by grace through faith. Again, it's not about your good or bad works. It's about receiving the gift.

Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of ALL?

"And he gave him a tithe of all."

This is what is said in Genesis 14:20, after Melchizedek blessed Abraham after Abraham's return from defeating the kings and rescuing his nephew lot, and bringing back the spoils of war.

Now, some people suggest that the tithe that Abraham gave was not only a tithe of the spoils of war, because it says, "and he gave him a tithe of ALL." The suggestion is made that Abraham also gave a tenth (tithe) of all his possessions to Melchizedek. This suggestion is then used to further the whole idea of tithing in today's church.

My friends, it's so easy to "suggest" such a thing. But it's also lazy to suggest such a thing! Why do I say that? Well, the entire account in Genesis 14 is only 24 verses long, and takes only a minute or two to read. The "rescue" and "tithe" part takes up about half of this. However, did you realize that the actual events that took place involved traveling hundreds of miles, and probably took many weeks, or possibly months?

The Genesis 14 account says that the original battle, where Lot and his family and goods were taken, was in the Valley of Siddim. Someone escaped and came and told Abraham about this. Abraham lived Mamre. He then gathered up his army of 318 men and went in pursuit to Dan, where he attacked and won the battle and brought back all the goods and people who had been taken, as well as the spoils of war. Sounds pretty simple, right?

Well did you know that it was approximately 200 miles from the Valley of Siddim to Dan? And from where Abraham lived (Mamre - 37 miles southwest of Salem), it was over 160 miles to Dan. So Abraham and his men go on this 160+ mile journey, successfully plan and execute an attack, and head back home.

The Genesis 14 account says that the king of Sodom met him in the Valley of Shaveh (near Salem, which is 126 miles south of Dan), and Melchizedek brought out bread and wine and blessed Abraham. This is where and when Abraham "gave him a tithe of all."

So are we really going to suggest that after traveling almost 300 miles, over a period of several weeks, with a bunch of men and goods, and now the added spoils and people that were recovered, that Abraham first decided to go back home to Mamre (another 37 miles from Salem), gather up a tenth of everything he possessed, and then bring it all back 37 miles to Salem, along with all the spoils of war (remember, he gave almost all the other 90% of the spoils back to the king of Sodom), and then he gave Melchizedek "a tenth of all" of this????

Like I said, it's very easy to come up with things like this to try to justify our reasoning (of what we want the scriptures to say). But it just makes no sense whatsoever. We've been taught things, or we come up with ideas, and we want the scriptures to make our case... but the scriptures simply don't make those cases. So why would we, with any sense of integrity, keep on trying to make things fit that just don't fit?

Repentance Isn't About Your Changed Behavior

The repentance that is needed for salvation is not a repentance of works. That is, it's not a change from bad/evil behavior to good behavior. Repentance that saves is a change from unbelief to belief. It's a change from self-righteousness (thinking your good behavior justifies you before God - faith in your good behavior) to putting your faith in God who gives you His righteousness as a gift, having nothing to do with your behavior.

If the repentance that is needed for salvation is about you changing your behavior, then it's not God who has saved you. You have saved yourself! So go ahead then. Just try presenting all your awesome behavior changes to God. He sent Jesus to shed His blood and died as the one perfect sacrifice for all sins... but you go ahead and stand in front of Him and show Him how good you've been!

Or... get that idiotic thinking out of your head, and truly repent. Stop thinking your behavior has anything to do with salvation, and believe the gospel instead.

God's Grace Is Sufficient for You

God's grace is sufficient for you.

Living with regrets? God's grace is sufficient for you. Thinking you should have made different decisions? God's grace is sufficient for you. Committed ungodly behavior? God's grace is sufficient for you. Thinking you should have said one thing but instead you said another thing? God's grace is sufficient for you. Thinking you should have done one thing but instead you did another thing? God's grace is sufficient for you. Don't know what to say now? God's grace is sufficient for you. Don't know what to do now? God's grace is sufficient for you. Backed yourself into a corner? God's grace is sufficient for you. In between a rock and a hard place? God's grace is sufficient for you. Thinking you missed "the will of God"? Guess what... He's right there with you, and His will is that you are in Christ Jesus - which you are - by His grace, through faith. God's grace is sufficient for you.

God will never leave you and He will never forsake you. You're in Him and He's in you. There is nothing that can separate you from Him. Nothing! God's grace is sufficient for you.

Church model? Be Who YOU Are!

Should I be like Paul? Should I be like Peter? Should I be like John? Should my church gathering be like the church gatherings as described in Acts? Should my church gatherings be like the church gatherings as described by Paul? Should my church gatherings be like the church gatherings that I grew up in? Should my church gatherings be like the church gatherings that I eventually changed to?

You know, there's not "one" given way to do it. There is not "one" way to minister to others. There is no specific church "model" in the Bible. There is nothing that says you have to do it exactly this way or that way. Sure, you can look and see how they did it in Acts. You can look and see how certain issues were dealt with by Paul and the others. But in doing so, let the SPIRIT be your guide. It's not WWJD. It's what is Jesus doing NOW.

One time (that we know of) Jesus got out a whip and started turning over tables. One time (that we know of) Paul "withstood (Peter) to his face." One time (that we know of) the people of the church sold what they had and shared everything in common. But were these things patterns or designs of how the church should do things from that point on?
Christ is in you. Listen to Him. Walk with Him.

Sometimes (that we know of) Paul went to Jewish synagogues and talked with people. We (generally) don't do that today! We have church buildings, podcasts, radio and TV ministries. There were no church buildings in the Bible. There were no podcasts in the Bible. There were no radio or TV ministries in the Bible. But yet it's the way that God has led people to do things today. It's neither "right" nor "wrong." It's just the way people do things. It's OK.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Just be who YOU are in the body of Christ (and let others be who they are). You don't necessarily need a specific model or program or pattern. As the Spirit leads, it just works!

Are the Ten Commandments Written on Our Hearts?

Sadly many people think that Jeremiah 31:31-34 (see below), and then Hebrew's quoting of it, is referring to the Ten Commandments / the law of Moses, when it doesn't say that at all. And in fact the law of Moses is called "the ministry of death" and "the ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor 3:7-9), and Paul says that the purpose of the law is to shut mouths and make people guilty (Rom 3:19). The passage in Jeremiah says that God will remember their sins no more, which is the opposite of what happened through the law. Paul says that the law is the strength of sin (1 Cor 15:56) and that the law entered so that sin might abound (Rom 5:20).

Because of all this - because the law was "against us" and "contrary to us" (Col 2:14) - Paul writes that the law was "wiped out," "taken out of the way" and "nailed to the cross" (also Col 2:14), and Eph 2:15 says that the law of commandments was "abolished in His (Jesus') flesh." And on top of all this, the very passage in Hebrews in which the passage from Jeremiah is quoted says that it was made obsolete, and it says that the New Covenant is "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers."

So the law written in the hearts is not the law of Moses / the Ten Commandments. That would be God writing the ministry of death, condemnation, guilt and bondage in the hearts of men, and would go against the entire New Covenant! The "laws" that are not according to the Old Covenant are the "law of faith" (Rom 3:27) and the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," which has "made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2). We know that the law of Moses is "not of faith" (Gal 3:12) and again we know that the law of sin and death (and guilt, bondage and condemnation) is the law of Moses.

So this really is a new Covenant! It really is a "new and living way!" It's nothing like the Old. It doesn't derive anything from the Old. It's new, and the meaning of the Greek word for new in this case is "of a new kind, unprecedented." It's something that has never been before. Be default and by definition it cannot be based upon the Law of Moses / the Ten Commandments. The Old has gone and the New has come!

-------------------
Jer 31:31-34
31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah —  32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
NKJV

Heb 8:7-13
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah —   9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.  10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.  12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Tithing Facts

Tithing facts:

- Abraham tithed not from his income or wealth, but from the spoils of one battle.

- Jacob vowed to give the Lord a tenth of everything. One man's vow doesn't make a principle for everyone to follow.

- Israel's tithes were food. God had told the tribe of Levi that they were forbidden to work for their own food. He commanded the other tribes to provide food for the Levites, in the form of tithes.

- Tithes were not money or income. You will find no scripture that tells anyone to give a tenth of their money in support of anything.

- The storehouse was an actual building in which food was stored, including grain, wine and oil. There were even stalls for livestock and flocks, because the livestock and flocks would be used as FOOD for the Levites. (2 Chronicles 32:28)

- There is absolutely no scripture that says that the New Covenant "church" is now the "storehouse." It is a grossly twisted misuse of the scriptures to say that the church is the storehouse.

- The recipients of the tithes were, again, the Levite tribe. Not pastors. Not churches. Not ministries.

- Jews today do not tithe. The command to tithe says that the tithes must go to the Levite tribe. They would be going against the command of God if they were to give tithes to anyone else.

- Malachi 3 was not written to Christians. It was written to Jews who had forsaken God's commands to them. Malachi 3 has nothing whatsoever to do with life in Christ.

- Why is Abraham's tithe brought up in Hebrews 7? It has nothing whatsoever to do with Christians tithing anything. Rather, the writer was making a point about how Jesus our High Priest is superior to the Levite priesthood. Melchizedek was the one who received the tithe (of the spoils of war) from Abraham, which shows that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. Jesus is "High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek," and so therefore He is greater than Abraham. And since the Levites were in Abraham's bosom when Abraham tithed, then Jesus is also greater than the Levites. And that is the point! Jesus is superior to the Levite priesthood. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christians tithing and everything to do with showing how Jesus is superior to the Old Covenant.

- Christian are never commanded to tithe. New Covenant giving is based upon the cheerful will of the heart, not a command or a law or a rule.

Bottom line: Giving is a wonderful expression of who we are in Christ. Give, give, give to your heart's content. But there is no "percentage" that is a godly amount. You have the honor and privilege of deciding in your own heart what you want to give, how much you want to give and who you want to give it to. 2%, 9%, 40%, 83%, 7.34542%, 0.0000123%. Whatever. You don't need anyone to tell you how much to give, what to give or who to give it to. Your heart decides.

Why Jesus Taught Law Teachings That Are Not for Christians

Many people believe that as Christians we are to follow all of the words of Jesus.  After all, Jesus is our Savior, so it only makes sense that all the words He spoke were meant for us to follow.  What many don't understand, however, is that many times Jesus was speaking "Old Covenant" talk to those who were under the Old Covenant (Israel), and He wasn't actually always speaking about life in the New Covenant, which had not yet come.  So the question comes up about why Jesus taught the Law/Old Covenant, even right before the New Covenant came to be.

A while back my podcast co-host Mike Kapler and I did a 20-part Growing in Grace series on why Jesus taught two covenants.  You can find the first part here, and then click on "Newer Post" at the bottom left to go on to each subsequent part.  But in the meantime, here is a brief explanation on why many times Jesus wasn't teaching about life in the New Covenant, but rather life under the Old Covenant, even right before the New Covenant was about to be put into effect.

The thing that made the switch turn on for me was this verse: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Rom 3:19)

From this verse (and many other verses as well), I began to see that the law's purpose was to stop mouths and to make people guilty. So the law had a very important purpose. It's just not the purpose that many people think! Many think that the law was meant to help people live right, but it actually does the opposite. The law is "the ministry of death" and "the ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor 3:7-9). Through the law, sin abounded/increased! (not decreased) (Rom 5:20). "When the commandment came, sin revived and I died" (Rom 7:9).

And ultimately, what this all did was to point to the need for a Savior. We needed Someone to do for us what the law could not do. Shortly after the above verse from Romans 3:19, Paul gives us the solution: righteousness apart from the law and being justified freely by God's grace through the redemption that is in Jesus. (see Rom 3:21-26).

So what the law did was it served as a tutor to bring people to Christ, so that they might be justified, not by law but by faith. Then once they've come to faith, the tutor's job is done and over with. (see Gal 3:24-25).

So then, getting back to Jesus' Old Covenant ministry of preaching the law, we can see that He did it perfectly and He did it for the very reason that the law was given. He used it to stop mouths (from justifying themselves). He used it to show them how guilty they actually were (according to the law) and how the law actually condemned them and didn't help to justify them. He used it exactly as it was meant to be used: as a tutor to lead them away from justification by works, and to faith in Him.

When Jesus was walking as a man on the earth, the Old Covenant was still in effect. When Jesus died, the New Covenant came into effect. The Old was then made obsolete (Heb 8:13). Jesus had been preaching the Old Covenant as the means of pointing ahead to the New Covenant. Now that we're in the New Covenant, and the Old Covenant has been made obsolete, we don't follow Jesus' Old Covenant teachings! Why follow something that is obsolete, especially when we now have something that is far superior!

I'm hoping this helps anyone struggling with why Jesus taught the Old Covenant, when the New Covenant was about to come into effect.

Speaking in Tongues

I've been asked about speaking in tongues a couple of times recently, and I thought I'd go ahead and post my thoughts publicly.

I think tongues is a wonderful gift, and from what I can tell in the scriptures it's been used differently for different purposes. In the early church, in Acts, speaking in tongues was primarily a supernatural gift used to proclaim God to people who spoke other languages. In Acts 2, the apostles (not all believers) began speaking in tongues, which was a matter of them "speaking the wonderful works of God" in the languages of the other people from other countries who were either living in Jerusalem or visiting there. In Acts 10, the gift was also given to the Gentiles, who were magnifying God in other languages. This wasn’t a "prayer language." It was a practical matter of evangelism, done supernaturally.

Then in 1 Cor 12, 13 and 14, it talks about different uses of tongues in the church. In 1 Cor 14, Paul says, "he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries." Then it says, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." So in this case, it doesn't appear to be used for the sake of others, but rather for self-edification. The word "mysteries" means "secrets" or "hidden things."

Self-edification is a good thing. Speaking mysteries, hidden things or secrets to God in the spirit is a good thing. But it's even better, according to Paul, when one prophesies (1 Cor 14:5). But yet they're both wonderful things. The main caution that Paul gives is that since others can't understand what you're saying when you're speaking in tongues, if I may paraphrase Paul, "speak in your own language when around others (the language that they understand), unless there is someone there to interpret your tongues."

Again, speaking of the public use of tongues, Paul says, "If I come to you speaking with tongues," it doesn't profit you. In a gathering, this use of tongues doesn't profit others. However, "if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful." It's great for my spirit to pray. It's a matter of self-edification and speaking hidden things in the spirit, which is good, so I pray in tongues privately. But I pray both in tongues and with my understanding. (1 Cor 14:13-17)

Do I think that everyone must speak in tongues? Do I think that tongues is a necessary evidence of salvation or that someone has the Spirit? Not at all. Not all have the gift, and that’s absolutely the way it’s meant to be. In Acts 2:4 and 19:6, it does indeed say that people were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began speaking with other tongues. But this does not in any way mean or suggest that this is what must happen with all people. In fact, there are other passages that talk about people receiving the Spirit, with no mention at all of tongues. And nowhere in the NT epistles, where the message of salvation is clearly given, is tongues attached to it in any way.

Back to 1 Corinthians. In Chapter 12, Paul is talking about various gifts that God has given to members of the body of Christ for the benefit of all. Tongues is one of these gifts, among many other gifts. Paul asks rhetorically, "Do all speak with tongues?" The implied answer is "No." His point in the chapter as a whole is that the body of Christ is made up of many different parts. Not all members of the body of Christ are the same, and they don't all function in the same way. The gifts are diversely spread throughout the body. Not everyone has the same gifts... and it’s set up that way by God Himself, all for the good of the body as a whole.

God has blessed the body of Christ with the gift of tongues - one gift among many gifts, just as with all the other gifts. The body works well when all the parts aren't doing the same thing, but are doing what they were individually called to do! On top of all this, Paul says there is something even greater than walking in any of the gifts, even the "best" gifts. He is, of course, speaking about love. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal." (1 Cor 13:1) No matter what our individual view of "tongues" is, or if we use it in the same way or not... it all means nothing apart from walking in love.

-------------------------

I also posted this as a Facebook note, and there is a good conversation going on about all of this here.

The Answer Is Always B - 8/2/17 - Temporary or Eternal Life

What is the correct wording of John 3:16?

A. "God gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should be given temporary life, until that person sins again, and then that person loses that life until he confesses and repents and starts doing good again, and then he'll be given temporary life until he sins again. And if at the time of his death he happens to have even one sin that he hasn't confessed and repented of, then it's curtains for him and he perishes, but if he did manage to confess and repent, then and only then will he be actually given eternal life."

B. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

C. "Am I only dreaming or is this burning an eternal flame?"